Talk:Moral Maze: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
:I agree with the deletion you made. I reckon the article reads fine now, so I've removed the POV tag. [[User:Bfinn|Ben Finn]] ([[User talk:Bfinn|talk]]) 22:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC) |
:I agree with the deletion you made. I reckon the article reads fine now, so I've removed the POV tag. [[User:Bfinn|Ben Finn]] ([[User talk:Bfinn|talk]]) 22:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
==Michael Portillo= |
==Michael Portillo== |
||
was a fomer frequent panellist. |
was a fomer frequent panellist. |
||
Revision as of 14:16, 2 June 2022
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.BBC Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Radio: UK Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure if the the criticism section is really relevant to this article. It sounds a bit partisan to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.105.123 (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I've taken this out as it is not sourced or evidenced "It has also attracted criticism for not properly detailing the politics and sympathies of its panellists, for instance in presenting Melanie Phillips simply as a journalist and not as an advocate of the Israeli hard right." What criticism? Where/ when? Melanie Phillips politics viz. Israel would surely only be relevant in that context? How would it bear on any other debate unless there were clear and reasonable parrallel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.8.120.133 (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree re the Israel point, I see the criticism by Jamie Whyte was also deleted for no good reason as it was sourced, so I have reinstated it.Ben Finn (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
"Structure"
This section is nonsense to this listener. The programme is not based on Select committee procedures who at least pretend they might be open to reason.
The 'witnesses' are not 'relentlessly' grilled - they are told they are talking nonsense by 'panellists' who are not seeking light but merely trying to have have their preconceptions on air, if not endorsed.
I agree it is compelling radio, as a car crash is compelling. I had a bet on how soon 'utilitarian' could be introduced in the programme...I won this week as Buerk used it in his bumbling introduction. How can someone, given a week's warning, produce so many 'umm's', 'errs' and pauses in a prepared script.
This article needs some proper editing by a disinterested person
Cannonmc (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with the deletion you made. I reckon the article reads fine now, so I've removed the POV tag. Ben Finn (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Michael Portillo
was a fomer frequent panellist.
Stub Class BBC
Why is this article rated stub class by WikiProject BBC? It seems too long to be stub class article to me. Vorbee (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Michael Buerk as a wikilink
Michael Buerk's name appears as a wikilink in the infobox in the top right-hand corner, but I wonder whether his name should appear as a wikilink in the section sub-titled "Structure". After all, not everybody might look at the infobox. Vorbee (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)